Repository

Case Repository

1–5 of 5 cases
  1. High Court of Bombay 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 873

    Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    The court took note of the problem of long delays in recording testimonies of child survivors and the adverse effects it has on the child and the prosecution’s case. In light of these observations, the court framed and issued guidelines to be followed to ensure expeditious recording of testimonies of child survivors. The court stressed…

    Pincites

    Para 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5

  2. High Court of Bombay 2022 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 182

    Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    Absence of any injuries on the person of the child survivor might not by itself discredit the statement of the child survivor and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction…

    Pincites

    Para 12; Page 4

  3. High Court of Haryana 2022 Cri LJ 1696

    Sanjay vs. State of Haryana

    Ratio

    Once a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provided that such witness is…

    Pincites

    Para 8, 10, 18, 19, 21-24; Page 3, 8, 10

  4. High Court of Bombay 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 511

    Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    The court held that the concerned authorities of the State Government or Central Government will take some initiative in incorporating certain amendments under relevant laws so as to give status to Section 164 statement as that of examination-in-chief in all eventualities. The trauma that a victim has to undergo, after the incident does not stop…

    Pincites

    Para 48; Page 13, 14

  5. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020

    Justin v. Union of India and Ors.

    Ratio

    Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are held to be Constitutional and they do not violate the Fundamental Rights, nor are they contrary to the basic criminal Principles. Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO would become operational only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.

    Pincites

    Para 21-31, 35; Page 15-18